SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Community Portal (view source)
Revision as of 02:47, May 27, 2016
, 02:47, May 27, 2016Restore recent material. We should not archive stuff that is less than 60 days old; some of these threads were still active. The full history went back 18 months.
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
== My advise to Trump ==
With Trump's matchup numbers in free fall, it's unsolicited advise time. Here's my three point program for reviving his fortunes:
# '''No more statements that suggest Trump is something other than a law-abiding citizen of the republic.''' No more threats against Ryan, the convention in Cleveland, or the protesters. Let the police and the security folks do their job. Don't make it too easy for the media to blame Trump for violence.
# '''All Hillary. All the time.''' Enough with Megan and Heidi! Hillary is a crook who runs a corrupt foundation. She should be in jail for allowing Huma and Blumenthal to have access to our nation's most sensitive secrets. She's also a UFO-believing idiot. Everything this feminist icon has is a result of her marriage to Bill. She has no talent for anything except lying and insulting people -- with Blumenthal providing most of the insults. '''I almost forgot''': The Benghazi episode shows she has no clue as to how to deal with terrorism. From the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to CAIR in the U.S., she's the Islamist's best friend.
# '''Sue the people who are disrupting the rallies.''' Soros, Black Lives Matter, and MoveOn all need to see summons. Don't accept blame the blame the various incidents at the rallies, violent and otherwise. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 09:13, 27 March 2016 (EDT)
== Missing articles ==
Alaska: [[Bill Walker]] — Arizona: [[Doug Ducey]] — Arkansas: [[Asa Hutchinson]] — Hawaii: [[David Ige]] — Illinois: [[Bruce Rauner]] — Maryland [[Larry Hogan]] — Montana: [[Steve Bullock]] — Nebraska: [[Pete Ricketts]] — New Hampshire [[Maggie Hassan]] — North Carolina: [[Pat McCrory]] — Pennsylvania [[Tom Wolf]] — Rhode Island: [[Gina Raimondo]] — Washington:[[Jay Inslee]]
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 18:57, 28 March 2016 (EDT)
There are general problems with the office holders of the states - an encylopedia aimed at students should keep track of those. I'm missing basic information on the pages of some states, too, like the number of members sent to the [[Electoral College]], the population, etc- --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 19:11, 28 March 2016 (EDT)
:You are correct. In addition, there is a lot of interesting content that crosses the Main Page, but is not back up by additions to the relevant articles in our encyclopedia. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:31, 28 March 2016 (EDT)
==Template Approval==
Hi, is anyone checking new templates and approving/denying them? I created a [[Template:Software|new template]] and submitted it for review, if not approval. Over a month later, it still has not been commented on, and on the same [[Conservapedia:Template submission|submission page]] I see nothing having been approved since 2009. I don't like to nag, but it would be handy if I could start using my template, if it is acceptable. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 00:00, 31 March 2016 (EDT)
== I got an email: TAR is not going to be an editor anymore and I think his decision is final ==
I got an email User: TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) is not going to be an editor anymore and I think his decision is final.
I did agree with TARs views where they agreed with the views that the bulk of conservatives hold. I also believe in preparedness as I think some hard times are coming in about 15-20 years.
At the same, I did mention to TAR not to have web pages with a ton of internal links on them and to not have big "see also" sections. And I agree with AlanE to avoid red links whenever possible. Given the amount of red links that were created by TAR than he will never clean up, I have to give AlanE some credit for being right about the TAR red link situation.
And some category tag clean up will have to be done too. So I have to give AugustO some credit too.
I wish the TAR situation had worked out and tried to assist in matters (suggested some books on writing, etc., gave him wiki page style recommendations, etc.), but it didn't work out.
And I made some promises to some people that I can no longer delay keeping. So unfortunately, I cannot assist in the clean up.
At the time TAR came aboard, there was less editors. So some of the editing formatting issues were overlooked. TAR having pro second amendment views and liberal editors attacking him made working with TAR about his editing formatting issues much more challenging. My time was divided between refereeing editors about their political fights and trying to coach TAR about editing formatting issues. There are more editors now so hopefully this situation will not be repeated in terms of an editor having wiki formatting/stylistic issues that are not more quickly corrected. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:53, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
:I complained about TAR too much. If he wasn't for TAR, I wouldn't have rethought about how the [[Austrian school of economics]] have better predicted recessions/depressions and how many of these economists/financial experts are predicting an upcoming economic collapse.
:Yes, his content could have been written/formatted much better. But I think I am looking a gift horse in the mouth. Sometimes a timely messenger comes wearing camel hair and a leather belt instead of wearing a three piece suit. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 02:14, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
== We need to put a complete and permanent stop to this ==
Our attempts to clean up [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TAR]]'s mess, and start turning this site back into an educational resource for school-age students, has been repeatedly interrupted by TAR coming back, reverting people's work, and blocking people. This most recent case is not the first time he has declared that he is retiring from Conservapedia. People need to have confidence that their work will not be destroyed, in a way that makes repair incredibly difficult, by this person.
Therefore, I respectfully recommend that his block privileges be revoked, so that he can't unblock himself and resume his destructiveness. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:03, 2 April 2016 (EDT)
::TAR said: "Dear Andy, I am resigning from any further participation in CP. Please delete my CP user account and erase my user page and talk page along with its history. Thank you. TheAmericanRedoubt (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2016 (EDT)"
::So I don't think he would have a problem with his blocking privileges being removed and his account being blocked.
::If he returns, which I don't think will happen, he would have to agree to: not create big "see also" sections, avoid using a lot of red internal links, only use highly relevant category tags. use hierarchical form of category tags and use an encyclopedic tone in his editing (avoid using the term "gun grabbing" often, etc. etc.). I think this is a moot point since I don't believe he is ever coming back to be an editor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:56, 2 April 2016 (EDT)
I complained about TAR too much. If he wasn't for TAR, I wouldn't have rethought about how the [[Austrian school of economics]] have better predicted recessions/depressions and how many of these economists/financial experts are predicting an upcoming economic collapse.
Yes, his content could have been written/formatted much better. But I think I am looking a gift horse in the mouth. Sometimes a timely messenger comes wearing camel hair and a leather belt instead of wearing a three piece suit. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 02:14, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
::My recent email from TAR indicated that this retirement from Conservapedia is permanent.
::I would like to tell you more about his future plans, but it was a private email so I cannot. I believe that he is not coming back though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:07, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
:::The rest of us would have an easier time believing this, without taking your word for it about all these mysterious secret emails you have with him, if Andy would simply revoke his block rights. You don't have any problem with that, do you? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 17:54, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
::::This has already cost us more hours that I would like to acknowledge. Can we suspend his powers until he helps with the clean up? [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 18:21, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
== Getting blocked for "adult content" ==
Using the internet service provided by a hotel (Sheraton) recently, some Conservapedia pages were blocked for having "adult" (that is, not family-friendly) content. I had not requested any kind of "parental control" setting. The page [[Liberal denial]] really caught my attention. It was accessible with one click from the front page. I then looked around, and several other pages were also flagged. All the pages like [[Bestiality and Sweden]] were of course flagged, but [[Liberal denial]], and a number of other "ordinary" pages, really surprised me. ''This web site is rapidly becoming "adult" in nature'', and not just in the expected articles by [[User:Conservative]]. It's really frustrating to try to write articles about math and science if they, or perhaps the whole web site, is going to be blocked by the parental controls that might be enforced for the intended audience. Would the administration of this web site please tell us what action is planned to remedy this situation? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 18:38, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
:The Bible mentions bestiality multiple times. Do you want to ban the Bible? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:51, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
::I have zero tolerance for that kind of childish and disingenuous excuse. It's the kind of excuse that I used on my parents to defend my use of foul language. I'm sure most people did the same. But we stopped by the time we reached the age of 10 or so. And you should too. There are things in the Bible that one should not be obsessive about. And no books of the Bible have that word in any of its book titles. Yet Conservapedia is quite obsessed with it: [[Professor values and bestiality]], [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]], [[Bestiality and various geographic areas]], [[Bestiality and Germany]], [[Atheism and bestiality]], [[Wikipedia on bestiality]], [[Academia and bestiality]], [[Denmark and bestiality]], [[Bestiality and Sweden]], [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]], [[Netherlands and bestiality]], [[Bestiality and Denmark, Sweden, and evolutionary belief]], [[Bestiality and atheism]]. It's time for you to stop acting as though the rest of us want to play these childish games. We don't. We haven't since we were 10 years old. These games are causing Conservapedia, a web site that many of us seriously care about, to trigger content-blocking software.
::But thanks for removing the "Being a proponent of [[liberal Christianity]], it wouldn't surprise me if you want to ban the Bible!" ''ad hominem''. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:57, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
::As a practical matter, we want Conservapedia to be widely available to people who are staying at hotels. (This is as important as the people who routinely place Bibles in each hotel room or as Marriott placing a copy of the Book of Mormon in each of its hotel rooms.) Similarly, we want Conservapedia to be available when and where we want to edit. If there was a simple misunderstanding about whether "Liberal denial" is family friendly, perhaps management can contact Sheraton about the operation of its adult material filter. However, it is probably not advisable to go to the mat over whether articles with the B Word in their titles should be accessed from those hotel rooms. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:11, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
:::There are 27 Conservapedia articles tying bestiality to liberal organizations, ideologies or groups. Conservapedia has over 40,000 articles. So a very small fraction of articles.
:::SamHB is just upset because I show that when some people embrace evolutionism/naturalism/liberalism, they also start embracing sheep, dogs and horses!
::::That quip, with its witty play on the word "embrace", would be funny coming from a 7-year-old. It isn't funny coming from an adult. In the past I have stated that I find you amusing. No longer. You do not amuse me in the least. You are doing serious damage to a web site that I, and most other people here, care about. This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with liberalism, naturalism, or evolution. And I have zero patience with your repeated efforts to change the subject. Get your mind out of the gutter. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:50, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
:::In 2014, a global news channel which broadcasts documentaries about current topics, reported concerning secular Europe: "Bestiality is having a weird renaissance in Europe."[https://sites.google.com/site/newsreport3738/] The pro-evolution ''Scientific American'' on bestiality: "After all, we are animals....".[http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_bestiality#Commentary_by_the_Scientific_American_and_evolutionary_belief_and_bestiality][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:22, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
::::Different people have different tollerences. For me, antisemitism was the "deal breaker." Perhaps SamHB has a different "deal breaker" so I can understand how he feels. The facts are that we live in a world surrounded by automated systems that pass judgment upon us. "Parental controls" are based on looking for key words, so even "Scientific American" or "National Geographic" will get into trouble at some point. I would hope that (1) Conservapedia has announced standards in its Commandments about being family friendly and enforces them and (2) there are people and/or systems in place to untangle content filters when Conservapedia gets an X rating. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 22:02, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
:::::Actually, this isn't a "deal breaker" for me personally. I consider the antisemitism to be more serious, just as JDano does. Perhaps because any sensible person will dismiss the bestiality stuff as childish. The point of my posting was that, while the bestiality stuff getting flagged didn't surprise me in the least, the flagging of [[Liberal denial]] '''did''' surprise me. Unfortunately, I haven't looked through the Liberal denial page to try to figure out what the problem is—the writing style is too chaotic. Perhaps someone else can look at it. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:31, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
Liberals excel in quickly dismissing information which challenges their wicked worldview. Its called denial. If only they were more sensible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:13, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
===We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children===
*I think that all the articles on bestiality are unsuitable for children - whether they are true or not
*Has anyone else encountered similar problems with automatic filters?
*The Bible mentions bestiality, but it doesn't goes on and on and on...
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 06:58, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
:AugustO, I know you are from Germany. Conservapedia's "[[Bestiality and Germany]]" article ranks #2 at a popular search engine (which begins with a G) for this particular search term. And the article has nearly 8,000 page views.
:On July 1, 2013 the ''Daily Mail'' reported that bestiality brothels were spreading quickly through Germany. In addition, there were "even 'erotic zoos' which people can visit to abuse animals ranging from llamas to goats."[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2352779/Bestiality-brothels-spreading-Germany-campaigner-claims-abusers-sex-animals-lifestyle-choice.html]
:In recent years, several countries with high rates of Darwinism/atheism have experienced problems relating to bestiality (see: [[Bestiality and various geographic areas|Geographic areas where bestiality is posing a notable problem]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[evolutionary belief and bestiality]]).
:Germany has one of the highest rates of belief in [[evolution]] in the [[world]].[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204/] In 2005, it was reported that Germany is one of the most atheistic countries in the world and the website adherents.com reports that 41-49% of Germans are agnostics/atheists/non-believers in God.
:A research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness.[http://www.conservapedia.com/Bestiality_and_Germany#Belief_in_evolution_and_sexual_immorality]
:Thank God a high proportion of Americans are creationists. I would hate to hear reports of bestiality brothels spreading rapidly across America.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:08, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
::I will also add that CP did its part to put public pressure on Germany. Probably due to public embarrassment, Germany did change its laws. And now the article serves as a reminder to Germans and to humanity what can happen when you embrace godlessness/evolutionism.
::To be fair, evolutionism is growing among American youth and there are concerns that America is descending down the slippery slope of depravity due to its legalization of homosexuality. ''Charisma News'' reported: "Bestiality Now Making US Headlines, Not Always Illegal"[http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/watchman-on-the-wall/42935-bestiality-now-making-us-headlines-not-always-illegal] Thankfully, at this point, it is not as bad as it recently got in Germany. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:36, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
(EC)
::I will also add that CP did its part to put public pressure on Germany. Probably due to public embarrassment, Germany did change its laws. And now the article serves as a reminder to Germans and to humanity what can happen when you embrace godlessness/evolutionism.
::To be fair, evolutionism is growing among American youth and there are concerns that America is descending down the slippery slope of depravity due to its legalization of homosexuality. ''Charisma News'' reported in 2014: "Bestiality Now Making US Headlines, Not Always Illegal"[http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/watchman-on-the-wall/42935-bestiality-now-making-us-headlines-not-always-illegal] At this point in the USA, it has not gotten as bad as it recently got in Germany. Also, with a some secular European countries getting embarrassed due to some public incidents and changing their laws, the rise of bestiality within Western Civilization seems to have subsided.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:48, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
:::The question is: Is Conservapedia the right venue for your crusade against bestiality in Germany?
:::Should home-schooled pupils in America be informed what happens in brothels in Sweden?
:::How many pupils are confronted with bestiality for the first time of the life here at Conservapedia? Is this desirable? Child protection software doesn't think so, obviously.
:::Who googles "Bestiality and Germany"? The same people who look for swear words in dictionaries. I'm relieved that this aren't that many, as the searches resulted only in less than 10,000 hits.
::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 11:40, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
:::The crusade is over. The forces of good won. Now CP just has to remain vigilant and remind the world what can happen when you embrace godlessness/evolutionism. So of course, the articles will stay up. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:48, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
AugustO, you wrote: "How many pupils are confronted with bestiality for the first time of the life here at Conservapedia?"
AugustO, how many times do you need to be reminded that the Bible mentions bestiality four times? Are you recommending that young people do not read the Bible?
At this point, I think you are displaying Germanic stubbornness and you are living in denial about the fruits of evolutionism. Remember, a research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness.[http://www.conservapedia.com/Bestiality_and_Germany#Belief_in_evolution_and_sexual_immorality]
And if Germany did not embrace evolutionism, maybe WWI and WWII never would have happened. See: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[World War I and Darwinism]].
And if a large part of Germany did not embrace godlessness, maybe Germany would not have a sub-replacement level of births (1.38 births per woman in 2012) and would not be flooding Europe with Muslims due to the needs of German businessmen for workers. [http://www.wsj.com/articles/german-companies-race-to-sign-up-migrant-workers-1449067661]
Lastly, I do want to add that I am not anti-German. For example, I recognize the benefits that Martin Luther brought to Europe and Western Civilization via the Reformation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:12, 5 April 2016 (EDT)
==U. S. financial condition milestone==
As of March 31, 2016 the share of the total United States national debt accrued under Democrat Nancy Pelosi's speakership (2007-2010) of the House of Representatives (27.5%) has been equalled by Republican speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan (2011-2016). 27.5% of the United States national debt equals 5.3 trillion dollars. Rush Limbaugh asked how Republicans can run on the issue of fiscal conservativism when they are responsible for spending as much as the Democrats. This new milestone certainly doesn't do anything to unsettle the basis of such questions. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 22:36, 7 April 2016 (EDT)
== Article request ==
Could someone please create the article: [[Christianity statistics]]
Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 07:52, 11 April 2016 (EDT)
:Conservative, I think the Baylor study you cited has thrown this type of statistics gathering into an uproar. A Christian asked, "Do you have a religious preference?" might answer, "No, I'm non-denominational" or "No, I just have a personal relationship with Christ", skewing the results. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 00:54, 12 April 2016 (EDT)
== 2016 Republican National Convention ==
I just saw a rerun of some of the 2012 Republican National Convention which led me to believe that this year's convention is going to be a zoo. Delegates of both parties are such ham bones that even when there are little to no debatable issues, especially as far as who will be the candidate, there are various cheering sections all around the convention floor for certain pet issues and state loyalties. I can imagine speakers this year having each and every sentence in their speeches scrutinized by the delegates and responded to with either cheers or boos—and cheers or boos increasing on each successive occasion—to denounce or praise the issue being discussed in hopes of giving either Trump, Cruz or Kasich the edge they need to push them over the top. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 02:26, 12 April 2016 (EDT)
== Atheism and cannibalism ==
Do we really need an article on this? Is this consistent with Conservapedia's vision as an educational resource for high-school-age students, as Andy explained so well [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvT5YuDovHI here]?
I know quite a number of atheists, and, as far as I know, '''not a single one of them is a cannibal'''. Perhaps cannibalism among atheists is not such a serious problem in the United States that teenagers really need to be warned about it.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:06, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
:Speaking on general "religion," what I see is that many "civilized" atheists are more against cannibalism than those who hold some kind of spiritual belief. Why? To an atheist, the body is all there is, but to someone religions, the human body is only a small part of their existence. Therefore, those who are religious see the human body as less valuable than those who are not. This article itself mentions it is "usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being." A ritual implies some (perverse) spiritual belief.Of course, to be more specific, Christianity does not permit cannibalism...obviously.<br />
:I see how this argument is created, but many things Christianity discourages, so do common morals. Murder, adultery (still frowned upon by most), theft, and oh yes, cannibalism. Perhaps this is because of certain parts of God's law still embedded in atheistic cultures, but none the less, many atheists are very strongly against this. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 13:26, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
::DavidB4, thanks for your comment to SamHB.
::SamHB, you did an excellent job of setting up a strawman argument and then knocking it down. My apologies for not mentioning in the article that the atheists you know are not cannibals (as far as you know). Anytime you want to refute the [[Atheism and cannibalism]] article, let me know. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:06, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
== Yet more on the repeated 500 errors ==
I know people have said things about this before, but such comments always seem to be ignored or minimalized. Every day or two, I get a "500" (Internal Server) error message. Sometimes the site is unavailable for up to an hour and a half before I can get on again. This is not:
*A network problem - I have seen this on at least four different networks, one of which is a high-end professional network.
*Browser problem - By definition, this is a code the server returns, but I've tried at least 6 different browsers, with at least 3 different core engines
*User problem - believe it or not, I do know what I'm doing
<br />
That said, I understand that 500 errors are by definition unknown problems. They are sent when the server knows that something bad happened, but has no idea what and couldn't even retrieve the usual error page to serve. In other words, 500 errors are a pain, especially when they come and go. Perhaps there is really nothing which can be done about this. I will say that I've seen this kind of problem before with lower-price web hosting. In my opinion, this is often the source of a 500 error, but I know there are many others as well. If this is the case, complaining to the service provider or changing providers may be the only way to resolve this.<br />
If this is an issue which everyone else does not really care about, then feel free to ignore this post entirely. However, I thought I would just try to show that this is indeed a problem. I know I would want to know if my public website was going down for one or more hours every couple days. Here are some "proof" images (although I know they ''could'' be faked) in case my word isn't enough.<br />
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-03-04-10.jpg March 4th, 2016 at about 10am]<br />
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-03-08-14.jpg March 8th, 2016 at about 2pm]<br />
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-03-10-14.jpg March 10th, 2016 at about 2pm]<br />
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-03-16-18.jpg March 16th, 2016 at about 6pm]<br />
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-03-18-08.jpg March 18th, 2016 at about 8am]<br />
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-03-30-15.jpg March 30th, 2016 at about 3pm]<br />
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-04-02-22.jpg April 2nd, 2016 at about 10pm]<br />
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-04-05-12.jpg April 5th, 2016 at about 12pm]<br />
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-04-08-09.jpg April 8th, 2016 at about 9am]<br />
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-04-08-09-threeBrowsers.jpg April 8th, 2016 at about 9am #2] - Three browsers shown when [[Internet Explorer|IE]] worked but no others did. This was the only time I know of when this happened, and is a bit of a discrepancy. <br />
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-04-11-11.jpg April 11th, 2016 at about 11am]<br />
[http://community.archnet.us/conservapedia/500/2016-04-14-9.jpg April 14th, 2016 at about 9am]<br />
Need I go on? Just to be clear, I am not posting this just to complain, but to try to be helpful. Have a great day! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:40, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
==Copyright==
Many of us have been spending most of the past month trying to clean up after TAR. The fact that so many copyright problems have been left behind indicates that Conservapedia editors may not appreciate the importance of copyright law. The edit box always displays the statement "You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Conservapedia:Copyrights for details). '''Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!'''" Permission means an agreement not only to place the text on Conservapedia, but also to license it to others on the same basis that all other Conservapedia content is licensed. In some cases, TAR just copied and pasted from other websites without attributing the content to them. In other cases, TAR copied large portions of text that a blog had quoted from another source. I would suggest that everyone take the time to read [[Conservapedia:Copyrights]] again. I also believe that we need more talk page templates to document when people have received permission to copy material. I assume that getting written permissions would be best, and that they should be stored in some central place, just in case misunderstanding occur in the future. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:46, 24 April 2016 (EDT)
:The greatest problem for me is that I don't know if they have the right to copy on not, so I agree--it really would help to have a single place where permission proof is stored. I don't know how that would work, though. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 08:39, 25 April 2016 (EDT)
::We could have a template on the talk page which references the letter sent to Aschlafly. Perhaps the letters in the file could be numbered, and the number inserted in the template parameter. The problem is that TAR copied verbatim from a particular blog that welcomed guest editors or copied from them. Under US copyright law, the copyright belongs to the author. We don't know if the author gave the copyright to the blog owner or licensed it with restrictions. The email from the blog owner to TAR was not clear about what licensing rights he conveyed further. He just said, "You can quote my blog up to 800 words at a time." That does not give Conservapedia the right to further license the reuse of the quote (which we generally do.) There is no need to quote that blog verbatim, and TAR should have written his own definitions when he posted them are separate articles. It is almost as if he was trying to generate 100 one-sentence articles each with a footnote to a particular author (perhaps for the search engines). But we now have 100 copyright headaches.
::If Aschlafly had a scanner, we could post scanned copies of each permission letter somewhere on the internet and put a link in the talk page template. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 02:09, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
== Please unlock ==
Please unlock the [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. I need to reinstate (uncomment) item #22, to track the reinstated item #22 in the main counterexamples page. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:00, 24 April 2016 (EDT)
== Please don't lock pages (other than templates and other things that can do an inordinate amount of damage.) ==
I have recently had (and still have) problems with pages being locked. It's easy to see that these acts were performed in response to vandal attacks. But it really isn't a good idea.
#It makes it harder for people to do their work, obviously. We have to request that the page be unlocked. And those requests sometimes go unheeded. See, for example, my request, just above, which has still not been acted upon. The two pages are supposed to stay synchronized with each other; there is a big editor-only-visible comment to that effect at the top of each page, but they are out of sync, and I can't fix this.
#It gives the impression that Conservapedia is not an open-editing "best of the public" web site. It could be taken as evidence that the administrators do not trust the public. Not trusting the public is not a conservative value.
#It is ineffective. We often have vandal attacks, in which someone vandalizes as many pages as possible before they get stopped. The locking is obviously a response to these attacks. But people engaging in mass vandalism will just go on to another page when they see one that is locked. The total number of pages that they vandalize before they are stopped is still the same. The amount of work that sysops (or, in a few cases, I) must do to clean up the mess is the same.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 19:00, 1 May 2016 (EDT)
:If it's any consolation, I agree, but your argument seems to have fallen of deaf ears. In my opinion, protection should be reserved for ''some'' templates, and perhaps pages which are under heavy attack for a few days ''at most''. While it's true that they can go vandalize elsewhere, sometimes [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39xlPMs3Obk an organized effort] is made to attack a single page for one reason or another. For this reason, it could be helpful to ''temporally'' protect such a page. However, I'm not as experienced on CP as the admins here--perhaps they have tried it this way and already know it doesn't work. I won't presume to understand exactly how their job works. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 11:52, 12 May 2016 (EDT)
== What's going on with user "SoridAtom"? ==
Can someone explain why SoridAtom's writings were treated the way they were? He wrote an article [[Atheism is the default position]] that, within the space of 36 minutes, Cons deleted, restored, deleted again, restored again, moved to an essay with a redirect, deleted the redirect, and deleted the essay, as well as blocking him.
I looked at it, and found nothing outside of Conservapedia's stance on these issues. It seemed to lie fully within what is commonly accepted. I made some notes to myself for future criticism (gently, not fire and brimstone) about the fact that it had two astonishingly bad run-on sentences. One of them had three main clauses and one subordinate clause, without a single comma anywhere. It went on for 3-1/2 lines on my screen.
I would not have bothered with this if I had thought it was going to be considered trolling or vandalism, or if I had thought that he would be blocked for "liberal trolling" or some similar block reason.
Could someone please restore this, so that we can see what it was about? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:26, 12 May 2016 (EDT)
:It was a copy and paste job and I thought his username was sordidatom. I misread his username. I can unblock him, but I am not going to restore his cut and paste essay. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:41, 12 May 2016 (EDT)
== The family-friendly nature of this site is being willfully undermined ==
The [[bestiality]] article contains, in the first section, this big quote, with a footnote reference to the "newsreport3738" web site. (By the way, the Conservapedia article says that the quote is about "secular Europe", whereas the actual quote says nothing about being secular.)
{{cquote|Bestiality is having a weird renaissance in Europe. Perhaps ironically, it kicked off when activists succeeded in banning the practice in places like Germany and Norway. In the background, something else emerged simultaneously: an animal-sex-tourism industry, which has been blossoming in Denmark. [footnote was changed; see below]}}
For a few days, the web reference was out there for all to see. When you went to that site, you had to make one more click to get to the actual quote. I won't repeat The URL of the web page on which that quote was found (it's since been taken down), other than to say that it has the animal-f***ers phrase, but the full quote on that page had a little extra something in front, in a large boldface font.
{{cquote|
<big>'''Animal F***ers'''</big>
Bestiality is having a weird renaissance in Europe. Perhaps ironically, it kicked off when activists succeeded in banning the practice in places like Germany and Norway. In the background, something else emerged simultaneously: an animal-sex-tourism industry, which has been blossoming in Denmark.}}
The quote went on well beyond that first paragraph, and had a video of a person detailing his tastes in bestiality. The whole thing was utterly disgusting and obscene. And yet it was here at Conservapedia. The third of the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] says that everything, including links, must be "... family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language".
Can someone clean this place up? I'm trying to get students of high school age to read my stuff, and I'm sure a lot of other people are as well. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:21, 13 May 2016 (EDT)
:It's gonna a big job that would require some cooperation between editors. Is this the page those sorts of things are discussed? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] ([[User talk:RobSmith|talk]]) 22:44, 13 May 2016 (EDT)
:::Yes. In December 2014 (probably while you were away) we made an effort to keep MainTalk focused on improving the content of the main page and not get cluttered with all these other discussions. Community Portal was pretty much a ghost town at the time. The attempt seems to have succeeded. So, Yes. This is the place. Even though it means that this page gets cluttered with irrelevant things about evolutionists wanting to have sex with animals. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:01, 14 May 2016 (EDT)
::::Evolutionists having sex with animals? perhaps. I suppose it were possible for a Christian to have sex with animals, but he/she/other could always ask God for forgiveness. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] ([[User talk:RobSmith|talk]]) 21:20, 15 May 2016 (EDT)
::The godless European evolutionists who want to have sexual relations with their furry "kissing cousins" is an embarrassing problem for evolutionists. It's a shame that pseudoscience would help create such depravity.
::Second, a new source is being used for the information and the new source is at: http://combatingatheism.blogspot.com/2016/05/secular-europes-weird-bestiality.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:22, 13 May 2016 (EDT)
::::Yes, indeed! The reference on the bestiality page was subsequently changed to point to a Conservapedia administrator's blog, to which the text was copied, but without the '''Animal F***ers''' phrase. And the whole thing (minus that phrase) was a quote of something in the "vice news" website, the name of which says it all. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:14, 15 May 2016 (EDT)
:::Ah c'mon Cons! Vice News a "new source" indeed! It would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic. It's a lie, Cons, and we all know it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 01:05, 14 May 2016 (EDT)
So, Europe is not very secular and several evolution loving countries didn't have a problem with bestiality recently? The Jerusalem Post was wrong and Copenhagen was not the "bestiality capital" of Europe? The first "bestiality rights" organization in the world didn't happen in Europe? Liberals, it is time to stop living in denial!
AlanE, according to Wikipedia, a website founded by an atheist and an agnostic: "In December 2013, Vice Media expanded its international news division into an independent division dedicated to news exclusively and created Vice News. Vice Media put $50 million into its news division, which now has 34 bureaus worldwide and has been praised for in-depth coverage of international news."[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_News#cite_note-2] Here is the source they used: "[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/03/04/vice-news-launches-promising-changing-of-the-guard-in-media/ Vice News Launches, Promising 'Changing Of The Guard In Media]'". ''Forbes''. AlanE, is Forbes magazine a news organization?
Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists and liberals, it is time to put on your sackcloth and ashes and repent of your foray into the decadent sin of bestiality! You were caught red-handed!
Just admit it. There was a notable problem in the atheist population with bestiality and the young earth creationist community didn't have this problem despite the Amish being around animals frequently! The Amish are a tight-nit community and unlike atheists, they haven't had a notable problem with bestiality or loneliness. See also: [[Atheism and loneliness]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 06:31, 14 May 2016 (EDT)
:"As of today, serious journalism officially has a home on Vice: Vice News. The new web channel launched today with reports from Myanmar, Russia, Venezuela and other global hot spots." - Forbes Magazine, 3/14/2014.[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/03/04/vice-news-launches-promising-changing-of-the-guard-in-media/][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 06:50, 14 May 2016 (EDT)
::I am taking a break from the internet for awhile for the most part. The issue has been resolved.
::Also, there was a notable problem with bestiality in secular Europe. Some European governments passed laws in order to tamp down the problem. Hopefully, there will not be a significant problem with illegal activity in this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:30, 14 May 2016 (EDT)
:::I agree. No parent who has their child's welfare as a priority would not allow them to visit Conservapedia. What was once a good conservative resource, meant for children, has devolved into resource that has many more words on bestiality than the Lord of the Rings has on Hobbits.--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 11:18, 14 May 2016 (EDT)
::::There are some articles related to bestiality that tie it to atheism, evolutionism, liberalism and homosexuality using relevant information. That is what is getting some liberals upset.
::::None of the web pages being linked in the article are from disreputable/salacious sources. In fact, LifeSite News, a pro-life news website which the owner of the website very much likes, has material on the bestiality problem which occurred in Sweden which I cited in the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:09, 14 May 2016 (EDT)
:::::ad infinitum. And I do like your policy of multiple oversights of your posts when you are backed into a corner, very convenient.--[[User:JamieVa|JamieVa]] ([[User talk:JamieVa|talk]]) 11:54, 14 May 2016 (EDT)
JamieVa, I changed my mind about responding to critics. Not a big deal.
Second, I notice you did not respond to the issue that LifeSiteNews.com, one of Andy's favorite websites, has an article on the bestiality problem that recently occurred in Sweden and this was material was quoted at Consrvapedia. Was I wrong in doing this? The Bible mentions bestiality several times. Is LifeSiteNews.com and the Bible family unfriendly? I don't think so! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:09, 14 May 2016 (EDT)
::::Yes, the Bible mentions bestiality, and LifeSiteNews does also. But neither mentions it under the name '''Animal F***ers'''. (I did searches of the NIV, ASV, CEB, DRA, ESV, GNT, ISV, KJV, TLB, RSV, and CBP translations.) The topic of this section is not bestiality ''per se'', or whether Conservapedia should mention it (though I think it shouldn't), but about the appropriateness of having a clean and family-friendly website draw people's attention to the phrase '''Animal F***ers'''. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:14, 15 May 2016 (EDT)
:::::Is it a sin? Yes. Is it condemned in the Bible? Yes. Is it a problem in the world today? Yes. Is it an appropriate topic to be mentioned or redirected to on a total of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=100&offset=0&profile=default&search=bestiality 210] pages on CP, a site primarily for young homeschoolers to be using? No, I don't think so. Is it a good idea to cite sources with such crude language on an educational resource? No, I don't think so. Ask just about any librarian in the world, about where to find good sources for a paper, and they will eventually come around to Wikipedia--not the content, but the sources. They often suggest you look up your topic on WP, and scroll right to the bottom and view all the resources cited. If CP hopes to be popular and useful, it should be assumed that people may do this here as well. Using such resources makes us look bad and unprofessional, promotes their content, and gives them more traffic to their website, which not only makes them think people like it but also potentially improves their website's ranking. Meanwhile, our ranking will be reduced since we refer to links of such poor quality. If you are concerned about what search engines think of CP as you seem to be, Cons, you might want to even consider this if nothing else.
:::::Meanwhile, other sins which are mentioned in the Bible (more frequently, in some cases) are mentioned much fewer times by CP. (For example, adultery: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=adultery&fulltext=Search 192], Polygamy: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=Polygamy&fulltext=Search 82], and Blasphemy: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=blasphemy&fulltext=Search 103]) I know it's an issue, but can we give such a disgusting sin a rest, and not shock the poor pre-teen who has the misfortune of clicking on Random Page one too many times? They'll need to learn eventually, but some things are best taught by parents. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 09:22, 16 May 2016 (EDT)
== On proper grammar, or, did you know that most of the population of Texas is homosexual? ==
== On proper grammar, or, did you know that most of the population of Texas is homosexual? ==